The way you wrote was implying to me that you thought North Korea was just like every other communist country. If you don't have an objection, then it is settled.
This is what I wrote: Can you answer simplest Qs? And add one more: Where do you see me expressing any thought - even trying ? Just curios.
My mistake. As you can see above, I thought you were the one that posted what jamesthebond wrote. Never mind.
to Nickf17 I'll tell you what. Inquisior makes use of the political fiction of the ex Soviet spy and defector Viktor Suvorov who sheltered in GB . Naturally he's spiteful toward his ex Motherland. There are such people. The information is: Viktor Suvorov Viktor Suvorov is the pen name for Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (born April 20, 1947 in Primorsky Krai), a former Soviet and now British writer of Russian and Ukrainian descent who writes primarily in Russian, as well as a former Soviet spy who defected to the UK. Suvorov made his name writing books about Soviet history, the Soviet Army, GRU, and Spetsnaz. His testimony about the capabilities of the Soviet Special Forces created concern in the West. It contributed to the formation of the Norwegian HV-016, an elite unit equipped to neutralize such a threat if ever deployed on Norwegian soil.[ Suvorov's most controversial assertion was that Joseph Stalin originally planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the Icebreaker) against the West. For this reason Stalin provided material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing the Red Army to liberate the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suvorov argued that Hitler lost World War II the moment he attacked Poland: not only was he going to war with the Allies, but it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union would seize the opportune moment to attack him from the rear.This left Hitler with no choice but to direct a preemptive strike at the Soviet Union, while Stalin's forces were redeploying from a defensive to an offensive posture, providing Hitler with an important initial tactical advantage.[citation needed] But this was strategically hopeless since the Germans now had to fight on two fronts, a mistake Hitler himself had identified as Germany's undoing in the previous war.[citation needed] In the end, Stalin was able to achieve some of his objectives by establishing Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea. However this victory according to Suvorov was unsatisfying to Stalin and the Soviet leadership, because the war was intended to bring Soviet domination to the whole European continent and then the world. Suvorov's assertions remain a matter of debate among historians. While most agree that Stalin made extensive preparations for an upcoming war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage, the assertions that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941, and that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler, are generally discounted.
The most noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz, and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky and Dmitri Volkogonov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks, Derek Watson, Hugh Ragsdale, Roger Reese, Stephen Blank, Robin Edmonds, agree that the major Suvorov's weakness is "that the author does not reveal his sources" (Ingmar Oldberg) Cynthia A. Roberts is even more categorical, claiming that Suvorov's writings are based on "virtually no evidentiary base". The most controversial Suvorov's thesis is that the Red Army made extensive preparations for an offensive war in Europe, but it was totally unprepared for defensive operations on its own territory. Thereby Suvorov essentially reiterates the argument put forward by Adolf Hitler in 1941. According to Jonathan Haslam, Suvorov's claim that "Germany frustrated Stalin's war" "would be comical were it not taken so seriously".
Much of Suvorov's thesis is based on circumstantial evidence: one of Suvorov arguments is that certain types of weapons were mostly suited for offensive warfare and that the Red Army had large numbers of such weapons. For example, he pointed out that the Soviet Union was outfitting large numbers of paratroopers preparing to field entire parachute armies, in fact and that paratroopers are only suitable for offensive action, which the Soviet military doctrine of the time recognized. Suvorov's critics say that paratroopers were used in defensive actions and that Soviet paratroopers were poorly trained and armed.However, Aleksei Semenovich Zhadov, commander of the Soviet IV Airborne Corps, writes in his memoirs that his corps was well trained and equipped, except for transport cars. In like fashion, Suvorov cites the development of the KT/A-40 Antonov "flying tank" as evidence of Stalin's aggressive plans, while his critics say that development of this tank was started only in December 1941. David M. Glantz disputes the argument that the Red Army was deployed in an offensive stance in 1941. Glantz demonstrated that the Red Army was only in a state of partial mobilization in July 1941, from which neither effective defensive or offensive actions could be offered without considerable delay. Regarding Hitler's alleged pre-emptive intentions, Erickson has stated that what really concerned Hitler was not Soviet aggression but Soviet concessions to Germany, which could frustrate his own grand design, depriving him of a pretext to attack. One of the major critics of the preventive war thesis is the American historian Gerhard Weinberg. In a scathing 1989 review of Ernst Topitschs book Stalins War, Weinberg called all who argue that Operation Barbarossa was a preventive war believers in fairy tales.
I was born in Belgrade (SR Serbia), Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and lived in that country till complete dissolution of the same. Ask whatever you wish to know and I'll do my best to answer your questions.
Thanx much for the pics (He really was a Soviet National Hero ,and as a 15 year old I dreamed of what it would be like to Race on the Soviet National Motocross team (But not on a CZ lolz)
Russia, once again, was in the national news broadcast (also was briadcasted on the national news broadcast of Germany, Netherlands, France & UK) with a clip of fascist skinheads in Moscow beating-up people -- the police was standing there and did nothing. Some Russians call homosexuality "spiritual terrorism aimed at destablizing Russia". From a couple of year ago -- France24 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHpU35q4Xq0"]Homophobia in Russia[/ame] Question: Why are Russians so homophobic?
When I started Vintage Racing in the 90's I put a Red Star on my helmet like him (& The Soviet Team used to have) and had Aeroflot(Soviet Airline) Graphics on the Sides of my Helmet & Maico Motorbikes ...
You are welcome, Gator. To be frank, I don't like motorbiking much, I think that it is too dangerous . Do you have a motorbike now, by the way?
Yes my Collection is pretty much intact (In my Game Room ) 1966 BSA Victor Gran Prix Special , 1974 Harley-Davidson Racer , 1978 1/2 Maico 250Magnum/Team Wheelsmith Racer , 1974 125 Can-Am ISDT Team Replica, First Year(1989) Honda Pacific Coast SportTouring Bike, 1975 Kawasaki KZ ...
At 1 minute 25 second I have seen a photo of Vyacheslav Maksjuta. He is the champion of Russia in bodybuilging and the minister sports in Saratov region. Ha, ha. What idiot have created this movie?
You should ask about my Vintage Boat & Outboard motor Collections & My Stamp & Firearm Collections ...
My SO does not do Marrage she does lunch . (But she does hate it when we go airborn off of Wakes at the lake in the Reinell)
Because after 70 years of 'communism' Russia is socially and politically retarded. In the Soviet Union homosexuality was a crime and people were imprisoned for this. What do you expect now?
Well, I know that Americans love cars and motorbikes. I have never had any . But I had a bysicle as a child and loved it very much